Judicial remedies for individuals before the highest jurisdictions, a comparative law perspective - United States of America

06-10-2017

This study is part of a larger project whose aim is to provide a comparative analysis of the rights of individuals in law proceedings before the highest courts of different States and before certain international courts. The objective is to describe the various remedies developed under domestic law that are available to individuals in American law, and in particular before this country’s highest courts. To that end, after a general introduction setting out the historical background, we will consider the various remedies available to individuals at both administrative and judicial level. The next step will be to look at the rules used as reference standards for the protection of individuals, and the case law of the highest courts regarding effective legal protection. Finally, we will draw some conclusions on the situation as a whole, with some suggestions for improvements. The immediate study describes the American model of judicial review, a decentralized model in which all courts have the authority to adjudicate constitutional matters alongside other types of litigation. Judicial review has been a part of major controversies throughout American history. The study describes how federal courts may hear constitutional claims of plaintiffs meeting the jurisdictional requirement for a concrete "case or controversy." It further describes the need for a plaintiff to demonstrate a cause of action in order to enforce his or her constitutional right. Remedies for constitutional violations include injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, damages, suppression of evidence, and post-conviction relief. The study also describes the absence in American law of a right to an effective remedy.

This study is part of a larger project whose aim is to provide a comparative analysis of the rights of individuals in law proceedings before the highest courts of different States and before certain international courts. The objective is to describe the various remedies developed under domestic law that are available to individuals in American law, and in particular before this country’s highest courts. To that end, after a general introduction setting out the historical background, we will consider the various remedies available to individuals at both administrative and judicial level. The next step will be to look at the rules used as reference standards for the protection of individuals, and the case law of the highest courts regarding effective legal protection. Finally, we will draw some conclusions on the situation as a whole, with some suggestions for improvements. The immediate study describes the American model of judicial review, a decentralized model in which all courts have the authority to adjudicate constitutional matters alongside other types of litigation. Judicial review has been a part of major controversies throughout American history. The study describes how federal courts may hear constitutional claims of plaintiffs meeting the jurisdictional requirement for a concrete "case or controversy." It further describes the need for a plaintiff to demonstrate a cause of action in order to enforce his or her constitutional right. Remedies for constitutional violations include injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, damages, suppression of evidence, and post-conviction relief. The study also describes the absence in American law of a right to an effective remedy.

External author

EPRS-ComparativeLaw